State v. Perkins, 2011 Ohio 2705

Task Force conducted a controlled buy of 55 ecstasy pills on March 20, 2009 using a confidential informant with audio and video recording.
Perkins drove Haslinger to the buy; they approached the CI and walked to a shed where the sale occurred, recorded on audio but not video.
Vehicle was stopped later for following too closely; Perkins consented to a vehicle search but no contraband was found.
CI was later killed by law enforcement; CI had been terminated prior to death for ongoing drug use.
Seneca County Grand Jury indicted Perkins for complicity to aggravated trafficking in drugs in the presence of a juvenile; vehicle forfeiture was sought.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation rights and evidence admissibility	Perkins argues CI was unavailable to testify; audio/video tainted by confrontation violation.	Perkins contends the tapes are testimonial and improperly admitted without CI on stand.	No Confrontation Clause violation; tapes not testimonial and invited error doctrine applied to debriefing tape.
Sufficiency of evidence for complicity	Evidence showed presence and proximity; indicates aiding/abetting.	Presence alone is insufficient to prove affirmative actions of aiding or abetting.	Evidence viewed in State-friendly light supports a rational finding of aiding/abetting.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements require opportunity to cross-examine)
State v. Stahl, 111 Ohio St.3d 186 (2006-Ohio-5482) (confrontation and hearsay framework in Ohio)
Ray v. State, 189 Ohio App.3d 292 (2010-Ohio-2348) (admission of evidence under Confrontation Clause framework)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (distinguishes testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements)
United States v. Price, 792 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1986) (hearsay and admissibility principles for recordings)
United States v. Lemonakis, 485 F.2d 941 (1st Cir. 1973) (context of recordings and hearsay considerations)